Procedural - Motions

MR. JACKSON: Thank you, Your Honor. Sure. Thank you, Your Honor. We filed this morning a motion for required finding of not guilty under Massachusetts Rule of Criminal Procedure 25A. I think that's before the court. My comments will be relatively brief, but it's important and the points that I'm going to make in the next couple of minutes are equally important. It comes down to the following. The Commonwealth has simply not proven, even in a light most favorable to them, that there was a collision on January 29th, 2022 at 34 Fairview in Canton, Massachusetts. There was no collision proven to have occurred. There was no eyewitness presented.

MR. JACKSON: There was no video evidence, no audio evidence, no evidence in the form of physical evidence at the scene by searches that were done by officers on the morning of January 29th, 2022. The Commonwealth through suspect experts based on circumstantial technical data only sought to prove a backing event. And that's important. They sought to prove that at 34 Fairview the SUV went backward. They did not prove, and every single one of their experts was asked this question, they did not prove that there was actually a collision associated with that backing event. The Commonwealth experts said at best that the car went in reverse and it was suspect whether it went in reverse at 34 Fairview or some other place, time, or date.

MR. JACKSON: The Commonwealth also put on an expert who said that she found no injuries, none mind you, indicative of a vehicle strike on John O'Keefe's body. And she, Dr. Irini Scordi-Bello, was arguably their most important witness. The Commonwealth cannot and did not say or prove a collision at a particular time, a collision at a particular place, a collision with a particular person, or that a collision even occurred on January 29th, 2022 at or around or after 12:30 in the morning. Their own expert yesterday, I think it was yesterday, if not the day before yesterday, was asked on examination by Mr. Lally, can you tell us the particulars of the collision, pardon me, as you suggested in your testimony? And his answer was, there's simply not enough evidence.

MR. JACKSON: He was asked specifically, "Why didn't you try to recreate the circumstances, the force impact? That's what you do, sir. You're a biomechanics expert. Recreate it for us." And he said, "There's not enough evidence." There is evidence, however, that Brian Higgins and Brian Albert were sparring at 34 Fairview. There is evidence, however, that that was just minutes, not hours, not days, minutes before John O'Keefe ultimately met his fate at 34 Fairview. There is evidence that Brian Higgins was lovestruck, that he was jealous, that he was aggressively coaxing John O'Keefe out of the Waterfall, that he was passively aggressively coaxing Miss Read to engage with him rather than John O'Keefe. Again, there was not a single eyewitness to a collision.

MR. JACKSON: There was not even a single eyewitness to a backing event at 34 Fairview. The court will recall Jennifer McCabe testified that she basically watched the SUV the entirety of the time it was in front of the location at 34 Fairview with Miss Read in the driver's seat. She saw it pull up once. She saw it pull up twice. She saw it pull up a third time. And then she saw it was gone. And at no time, at no time, did she ever see the car go in reverse. She certainly didn't see the SUV go in reverse at a high speed. And she darn sure didn't see the car go in reverse at a high speed and strike a pedestrian. Her focus was defined enough to see thin tire tracks and a dusting of snow thin enough, I think the phrase was, to track a cat. That's how detailed she was in her observations.

MR. JACKSON: Yet, she did not see John O'Keefe hit by an SUV. She did not see John O'Keefe's body in the snow in the yard laying prostrate. A 216-lb 6'1 man in the snow directly in front of the SUV. She was tracking the entire time. There are two other witnesses, Ryan Nagel, Heather Maxon. They both noted that John O'Keefe, not that they didn't see him, Your Honor, that John O'Keefe was not in the vehicle when they were behind it. The dome light was on. They could see inside the interior of the vehicle. Miss Read was sitting there with her hands at 10 and two, and the passenger seat, notably and markedly, was empty. He was not outside the vehicle. He wasn't standing. He wasn't sitting. He wasn't lying down.

MR. JACKSON: There's only one place he could be — inside the curtilage of the home, inside the house, or inside the garage. Not one witness that was inside the house, not one passer by, not one neighbor, not one plow driver ever saw John O'Keefe's body laying prostrate in the snow that morning. Not one. Not until Karen Read found Mr. O'Keefe at about 6:03. And again, the Commonwealth's chief medical expert, Dr. Scordi-Bello, their medical examiner, who's the only person, the only person that the court heard from or will ever hear from who actually investigated John O'Keefe's physical body. The only person to have physical access to John O'Keefe testified he did not have any injuries consistent with being struck by a vehicle.

MR. JACKSON: But she did indicate that the injuries, as did the firefighters, the first responders, indicate that he had injuries consistent with a physical altercation. And certainly, certainly as to counts one and three, no evidence has been presented or proffered whatsoever by the Commonwealth that Karen Read intended to run over and harm John O'Keefe in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Hearken to the video at C.F. McCarthy's. Hearken to the video at the Waterfall. Every witness confirmed what our eyes could see that night. John O'Keefe, Karen Read were loving, caring, affectionate. There's absolutely no evidence that Karen Read had an intent to harm John O'Keefe or that she — that after the fact that she intended to leave him for dead because there was no fact to be after.

MR. JACKSON: There was no collision in the first place. The Commonwealth's case, certainly on counts one and three, taken separate from count two because of the mens rea associated with counts one and three, fails miserably. The Commonwealth at the end of the day has presented their best case. They've done their best. Some would say they've done their worst and their case has failed. No reasonable jury, hearkening back to the standard under Rule 25, no reasonable jury could find Karen Read guilty of count one, count two, or count three. But taking count one and three aside, those are separate counts because of the mens rea required and the high burden that's required, even taken in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth.

MR. JACKSON: What evidence have they proven that Karen Read intended to kill or harm John O'Keefe or that she intended to leave him for dead in the snow? The answer is none. Zero. No reasonable jury could find Karen Read guilty. This case never should have been brought in the first place. There are reasons that I won't go into here. The court knows those reasons or knows our position on those reasons. This was a vindictive prosecution and I believe that the court is duty bound pursuant to the precepts of Rule 25A as well as the principles of justice to dismiss all three counts and certainly taking count one and count three aside, the court is duty bound to dismiss those two counts. Thank you.